Standing by their principals (or not, on principle)
By Katy Murphy
Thursday, March 26th, 2009 at 11:37 pm in elementary schools, families, high schools, investigations, leadership changes, OUSD central office, people, School board news.
The air in the board meeting room was so thick and humid Wednesday night it was almost sticky, and it wasn’t because of the weather. People jammed the place — and the overflow room upstairs — to speak on one of many, many matters.
I didn’t stay until after 2 a.m., when the meeting finally wrapped up, but one of the things that struck me from the first five hours of the meeting was the principal theme that emerged.
Dozens of people — parents, teachers, neighbors, and even City Councilwoman Desley Brooks — urged the board to keep Al Sye, the popular new Skyline High School principal who received a layoff notice this month after an investigation into the complaints of several staff members. There was also a supportive contingent from Maxwell Park, a newly redesigned/reopened elementary school whose principal, Mary-Louise Newling, got the same dreaded release letter, to staff’s dismay.
And then there was something you don’t see too often: a whole crew of teachers speaking out publicly against their principal. Teachers from CBIT, the Castlemont Business Information & Technology School, gave the board a letter – apparently signed by 80 percent of the school’s staff — with a litany of academic, safety and management problems they say they have experienced under the leadership of Susan Ryan, the new principal.
In all, five Oakland principals learned this month that they had likely lost their jobs (as of June 30), said Jo Anna Lougin, executive director of the Oakland principals union, United Administrators of Oakland Schools. That includes Sye, Newling, Rachelle Sallee (Tilden), Michael Rothhammer (Garfield), and Ifeoma Obodozie (Joaquin Miller).
Lougin said this was the first year she could remember in which principals received final release notices in March, rather than in May. Typically at this time of year they get warnings of potential layoffs, or pink slips, like other district employees, she said. But this year, Lougin said, these principals have already been told that they’re out — but not until June 30, three months (and an entire high-stakes testing cycle) from now.
That doesn’t make sense, Lougin said. “They still have to run a school.”
What do you think?
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
March 27th, 2009 at 12:06 am
well, teachers still have to teach classes and they find out in march, too. in this economy, it is more lead time to find a new job, and that is better for the individuals in question.
for anyone in education to find out they’re out of work before the end of the school year jeopardizes the students because you run the risk of someone who no longer cares. the whole timing issue pisses me off to being with. having had to teach with people that know their time is up, i feel bad for them and the kids. it is demoralizing and eliminates any real sense of hope or purpose.
but the “they have schools to run” argument is nonsense. teachers MAKE the school run, so if you let them know in march, principals should be on the list, too.
as far as the other information here… i worked with susan ryan last year to develop lessons for english that would be more engaging and accessible for my students while increasing their comprehension, discussion and writing skills. without her guidance and encouragement, i would have been really lost and possibly left the field of teaching. i am saddened to hear that this year has not gone well for her and that her staff has not been able to benefit as i did.
March 27th, 2009 at 7:06 am
It sounds like a vote of no confidence was taken by the staff and that was the report the board got. It is what it is. The results are not unexpected.
March 27th, 2009 at 7:53 am
Aly’s comment made me start thinking about possible unspoken motives for this action. The principal could be trying to hold teachers accountable and fight against low expectations that seem to plague our district. This might be a reaction from a group trying to maintain the status quo.
March 27th, 2009 at 8:09 am
Was there a reason Maxwell Park’s principal got a release letter?
March 27th, 2009 at 9:17 am
Now that these principals have been notified of their fate, it would behoove the so-called leaders propped up in the dingy administration building to begin the process of finding new principals at these schools.
Perhaps an early and comprehensive process will lead to the selection of appropriate school leaders.
The district is notorious in its lack of focusing proactive energies on an issue. But on this, efficiency and urgency are critical.
March 27th, 2009 at 9:19 am
Pepe: I don’t know what the reason is. I asked a group of teachers and parents from Maxwell Park, and they said they didn’t know either.
Also, to Aly’s point: Unless I’m mistaken, although teachers and other district employees receive “pink slips” in March, signaling the possibility that they might lose their jobs, most don’t receive final release notices (like the ones the principals got) until May.
But maybe that has changed this year?
March 27th, 2009 at 10:37 am
I know the principal of Joaquin Miller. I know there was a group of parents and teachers working diligently for her removal. They actually chose her (a team that included parents and teachers).
What I have to say is that I, for one, am sorry to see her go. I know the teachers did not like her style. But for the first time in our history with the school, test scores for the poor and children of color have risen. For the first time GATE kids in K – 3 are getting the support they need and deserve. For the first time there is a GATE Committee that meets, asks for and makes recommendations and distributes information. For the first time the School Site Council actually makes the decisions about how SLIP money is spent rather than just signing off on what the principal has stated will be done. For the first time, teachers were required to modify and make new lesson plans for each school year depending on the students rather than recycling the same lesson plans year after year.
The teachers will have a new principal in a year or two. I hope the new principal will be able to continue the school community participation that has been established. I hope the new principal will be able to make sure that all students are educated to their fullest potential and most importantly, I hope that the parents and teachers who decided the principal has to be changed are satisfied with their decision and the new principal that will be chosen.
March 27th, 2009 at 11:00 am
When a principal or teacher is laid off, it not on a whim. It is a very lengthy process and district adminstrators work very hard to make the right decision for all parties involved.
Catherine, test scores and committees are only a small part of what principals are responsible for. New principals need to be adequately trained in all aspects of the job before they are hired.
March 27th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Well, Catherine, I hope you make your voice heard loudly and clearly once the selection process begins – because as your posting indicates, a strong, nurturing principal is vital to the success of any school.
March 27th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Katy: My understanding of March pink slips is that you are “off the books” until a principal tells you otherwise and you go downtown to sign a new contract. I think the May letters are a different kettle of fish.
———–
In general, If you’re the principal you have to work constructively with all key parties — parents, teachers, the district, and, yes, students — at least until you establish yourself.
Having worked under five principals in as many years, I think I’d now be willing to accept a steady mediocrity rather than keep hoping these whiz kids and “lion-tamers” work out.
March 27th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Oh, and as to your question about early notification — Lougin is just spinning. MAY notification insures that Oakland will have last pick of applicants because they won’t really be doing interviews until July/August and new principals will only have a few weeks to get up to speed.
Go back and look at when principals were actually interviewed and hired last year EVEN WHEN THE DISTRICT KNEW MONTHS EARLIER IT DIDN’T WANT THE PRINCIPAL BACK. Principaling in Oakland is a hard enough sell without restricting your self to a 3-week EdJoin ad window and picking through those not under contract in July.
Now, will OUSD use the extra two months wisely? Remains to be seen. But absolutely, March notification is better if it leads to an earlier replacement search.
Also, the new volunteer principal selection committees take time to form — and are especially hard to form in the Summer, when everybody is scattered for the long break. [These committees right now are supposed to have 3 teachers, 2 classified staff, 4 parents, 2 students and 2 community members.]
Besides, these are professionals — is Lougin implying they can’t do their job without a promise of future employment? PLEASE. Then stop paying them in March and save the dough.
March 27th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
To Catherine:
I’d be curious what your relationship is to the Joaquin Miller principal, because your perception of the issues are much different than mine (although if you heard Ms. Obodozie talk about it, you would surely get the impression that she is a superhuman fighting against impossible odds). Test scores were already rising under the leadership of the former principal, although Ms. Obodozie jumped in and took as much credit as she possibly could. Not that I blame her for that-I’d probably do it too-but the increase in test scores over her short tenure has little to do with her, and they may have been higher without her for all we know. The less wealthy children, children of color, and special needs kids have been nurtured and supported at JM under the leadership of their able and empathetic teachers.
It is inaccurate to say that the parents and teachers chose Ms. Obodozie. She was selected by the district, with major hesitation on the part of parents (I don’t know how the teachers felt), from an extremely small pool of candidates (fewer than 6) over an exceptionally short time frame (6 weeks?), and we weren’t actually given much choice given the rush to hire. Parents were told, however, that it would be a simple process to replace any principal that was not the best choice for the school. Sadly, her lack of leadership skills was apparent very early on. We all gave her plenty of time, and plenty of excuses to meet the challenge, and were met with fierce resistance from her and from the district. She is a very charming person but she is not well suited to running an elementary school, from my observations and interactions with her. She had great difficulty finding the way to lead (and learn from) a group of teachers that are for the most part excellent, she seemed to bristle at her interactions with parents and the PTA, and she seemed to struggle with the schedule demands of her job. We lost one excellent teacher already as a direct result of her inflexible and somewhat misguided actions and demands, and I’m afraid we’d lose more if she stayed (in addition to the teacher that she fired in March without any cause that anyone could discern).
As for her interactions with parents, she could be very charming, but on issues that required parental input, she managed to make poor choices but never held herself accountable, and she had an alarming ability to make herself inaccessible and to lie very sweetly instead of actually dealing with problems. Parents who did not have issues that needed resolution generally did not have any issues with her, for obvious reasons.
I think all the parents were initially very taken by her obvious charm, and we were all hopeful for her success, but her efforts, in my opinion, were ultimately destructive to the whole fabric of a very successful school. Keep in mind, too, that test scores don’t tell the whole story. Our scores are lower than some schools in part because the special ed students are included in the testing. I, for one, am proud of the school for that. And from my observations, Ms. Obodozie was interested in making her mark on the school, but she didn’t have good sense for keeping what already works well. There may be some teaching that is not effective at the school, and I have heard some isolated rumblings about a few isolated issues, but it’s pointless to change lesson plans that work well. There may be issues that I am unaware of, but I am pleased at the repeated lessons I have observed, because they are fun for the kids and manage to combine significant learning, that goes well beyond the state-mandated standards.
Ms. Obodozie recently encouraged parents to work toward some “award” that would have resulted in little more than a banner for the school (no added funding, no flexibility, but a lot of work for the parent volunteers). This might have been good for her resume but it was not the right choice for the school (no surprise that the overextended parent volunteers didn’t materialize for this effort).
Joaquin Miller needs a leader who can preserve the strengths of the school and weed out the weaknesses. Ms Obodozie seemed to be in way over her head professionally, and didn’t seem to have a good leadership of the students or her staff either. I am sorry to say that I am NOT sorry to see her go. She alienated good parents and good teachers. I do think she has skills that are perhaps better suited for a different type of job, one that would not need refined interpersonal skills to work successfully with faculty, staff and parents (not to mention students). No sense tossing all the crew at JM just to keep the commander!
March 27th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Dear Diligent Parent,
We could not agree with you more!
As rumors started to circulate around Joaquin Miller today that Obodozie was let go the smiles were contagious among parents, teachers and staff. We do not know a single parent who is saddened by her departure-which could not happen soon enough.
Her lies and bizarre actions are more suited to a soap opera than a school setting.
We hope she packs up her office this weekend.
March 27th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Dear Diligent Parent,
Thank you for your thoughtful and comprehensive post.
I’m smiling, but there is still the issue of an incredibly gifted teacher who has been unfairly fired.
Once she has been reinstated, we can all celebrate.
March 27th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
In 2003
Below Basic and Far Below Basic
2nd Grade – 10% Reading and 7% Mathematics
3rd Grade – 15% Reading and 16% Mathematics
4th Grade – 2% Reading and 11% Mathematics
5th Grade – 10% Reading and 10% Mathematics
In 2004
Below Basic and Far Below Basic
2nd Grade – 15% Reading and 9% Mathematics
3rd Grade – 25% Reading and 16% Mathematics
4th Grade – 9% Reading and 17% Mathematics
5th Grade – 4% Reading and 11% Mathematics
A. Second Graders tested for the first time 5% more students behind in Reading and 2% more students behind in Math over the previous year.
B. Second graders in 2003 are third graders in 2004 – an additional 10% have fallen behind in Reading and an additional 11% have fallen behind in Math
C. Third graders in 2003 are fourth graders in 2004 – an additional 7% have fallen behind in reading and an additional 6% have fallen behind in Math
D. Fourth graders in 2003 are fifth graders in 2004 – an additional 2% have fallen behind in reading and an additional 1% have fallen behind in Math.
In 2005
Below Basic and Far Below Basic
2nd Grade – 16% Reading and 14% Mathematics
3rd Grade – 13% Reading and 13% Mathematics
4th Grade – 14% Reading and 24% Mathematics
5th Grade – 16% Reading and 18% Mathematics
A. Second graders in 2004 are third graders in 2005 – 2% of students that were in the Far Below or Below have moved up to Basic; however an additional 4% have fallen behind in Math
B. Third graders in 2004 are fourth graders in 2005 – an additional 1% of students fell behind in Reading and an additional 11% have fallen behind in Math
C. Fourth graders in 2004 are fifth graders in 2005 – an additional 7% have fallen behind in reading and an additional 1% have fallen behind in Math.
In 2006
Below Basic and Far Below Basic
2nd Grade – 11% Reading and 9% Mathematics
3rd Grade – 20% Reading and 18% Mathematics
4th Grade – 14% Reading and 20% Mathematics
5th Grade – 28% Reading and 28% Mathematics
A. Second graders in 2005 are third graders in 2006 – 4% of students that were in the Far Below or Below have moved up to Basic; however an additional 4% have fallen behind in Math
B. Third graders in 2005 are fourth graders in 2006 – an additional 1% of students fell behind in Reading and an additional 7% have fallen behind in Math
C. Fourth graders in 2005 are fifth graders in 2006 – an additional 12% have fallen behind in reading and an additional 10% have fallen behind in Math.
In 2007 Below Basic and Far Below Basic
2nd Grade – 10% Reading and 10% Mathematics
3rd Grade – 15% Reading and 15% Mathematics
4th Grade – 17% Reading and 14% Mathematics
5th Grade – 12% Reading and 18% Mathematics
A. Second graders in 2006 are third graders in 2007 – an additional 4% of students fell behind in Reading and an additional 6% fell behind in Math
B. Third graders in 2006 are fourth graders in 2007 – gains were made in both Reading and Math for this group – 3% became basic in Reading and 4% became basic in Math
C. Fourth graders in 2006 are fifth graders in 2007 – gains were made in both Reading and Math for this group – 12% became basic in Reading and 10% became basic in Math.
If I were a second grade student in 2003, 10% of my classmates were below basic or far below basic in Reading and 7% were below basic or far below basic in Math; when our class left for middle school in 2006, 28% of my classmates were below basic or far below basic in Reading and 28% were below basic or far below basic in Math. Almost triple the number of students fell behind in Reading and that number quadrupled in Math.
If I were a second grade student in 2004, 15% of my classmates were below basic or far below basic in Reading and 9% were below basic or far below basic in Math; when our class left for middle school in 2007, 12% of my classmates were below basic or far below basic in Reading (an improvement of 3%) and 18% were below basic or far below basic in Math. The number of below basic and far below basic in Math doubled in the time I was tested.
Then the new principal arrived.
In 2008 Below Basic and Far Below Basic
2nd Grade – 16% Reading and 6% Mathematics
3rd Grade – 8% Reading and 6% Mathematics
4th Grade – 4% Reading and 6% Mathematics
5th Grade – 14% Reading and 16% Mathematics
A. Second graders in 2007 are third graders in 2008 – 2% moved into basic in Reading and there was no change to the percentage in Math
B. Third graders in 2007 are fourth graders in 2008 – gains were made in both Reading and Math for this group – 11% became basic in Reading (improved by 75%) and 9% became basic in Math (improved by 65%)
C. Fourth graders in 2007 are fifth graders in 2008 – gains were made in Reading by 2% and students fell in Math for this group by 2%.
I am interested to see what the test scores bear out this year. This will be two test cycles under the new principal.
The person who posted that there were advances before the new principal was right in that after YEARS of decreasing education two grades did increase. But during the time we had declining test scores year after year, we saw attrition rates at our school between kindergarten and fourth grade of nearly one-third of our students. The attrition rate has decreased dramatically.
And once again, each of the posters on this blog failed to mention the differences in transparency of the GATE Committee and money and the School Site Council activity, budget and decision making that is now afforded parents that was not done at all before the new principal.
March 27th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
katy- good point. i am referring to teachers who are probationary and released for the upcoming year. they get their release letters the same time pink slips go out. at least they did last year and this year; i don’t know about years previous.
March 28th, 2009 at 7:26 am
I find the comments here about the Joaquin Miller principal unsettling. Regardless of how you may feel about her and the job he has done, ridiculing her in a public forum like this is exceedingly tacky.
March 28th, 2009 at 8:48 am
Dear Readers,
Today is the last chance you will have to see Skyline’s absolutely beautiful production of West Side Story. I am sorry to say that, despite ample notice given to the Tribune well in advance of this major spring production done by OUSD’s largest and longest established performing arts high school program, the coverage of this major event has been neglected. The show ran all last week as well.
West Side Story is a classic musical with a story relevant to today’s urban youth. Skyline’s production has a cast of over 50 kids, and a live orchestra. The lead singers are outstanding. I very much hope you can fit it in to your day.
Saturday, March 28: TWO SHOWS LEFT
Matinee at 2:00 p.m.
Evening show at 7:30 p.m.
$10 general admission
$8 children under 12/seniors over 62
Farnsworth Theater
Skyline High School
12250 Skyline Blvd.
I apologize for having to be so pushy, but I want to get the word out.
March 28th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
We are having serious problems at Montera. There is a climate of fear because of the principal’s harassment of older white teachers, verbal abuse of female teachers, administrative inability, and overall negativity; teachers are terrified about complaining about this for fear of losing their jobs.
March 28th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Ms O’s idea of closing the achievement gap was to advise those higher-scoring students that were white to go to private schools. She specifically recommended this to me during a parent-principal meeting.
March 28th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
The two years under Ms Obodozie were the ONLY two years of the last 8 when no GATE education was happening in classrooms. Prior to her arrival, my children were given individualized assignments by every teacher, challenging, interesting, at their own level. She put an end to this – she was so concentrated on test scores.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:08 am
My child had a second grade teacher who was a former kindergarten teacher. She learned absolutely nothing in second grade. The material was reconstituted kindergarten work with Open Court.
The previous principal at JM did not believe in GATE at all and specifically told parents that it was the white and Asian upper middle class parental advantage that created high test scores, did not have a GATE Committee, put the GATE funds in the general fund and wrote the GATE plan and School Site Committee document and budget herself against the policies of the district and the State.
The kindergarten teachers, first grade teachers (with the exception of one), second grade teachers and third grade teachers at JM have not developed a curriculum development plan of GATE students. Ask them to show you their plan. They don’t have one.
If your children thrived with GATE instruction, then my guess is that you as a parent, advocated with every teacher, every year to get their needs met. GATE curriculum plans at JM, with the exception of one first grade teacher and the fourth and fifth grade levels are non-existent.
In addition, I challenge you and everyone who has written on this list to criticize the new principal to explain how the School Site Council worked before the new principal. There were virtually no parent attendees except to sign the plan written by the previous principal.
JM was run by the teachers prior to the new principal, the previous principal rarely evaluated the teacher’s work with students, and the increasing number of students who fell from far below basic and below basic from 2003 – 2007 speaks volumes. The number of students leaving the school after third grade for private schools or public schools in other districts was unacceptable.
There are many things about the new principal’s methods and style which needed to be modified, and with that I absolutely agree. But 25% of the student population – extrapolating out the special day classes, roughly 20% of our students at any given grade working at far below and below basic is just unacceptable.
What the new principal was attempting to do from my vantage point was to have a systematic plan for each segment of the JM population: the kids at the bottom, in the middle and at the top. She wanted it documented – because in doing so, if it worked or didn’t work, you had the documentation for analysis.
At JM we have done many thing right and well for our students, but parental and community input into the School Site Council and the GATE Committee was not one of them – documentation of our methods, our plan for meeting the needs of each group of students was not one of them – and finally, a plan for helping our children of color and the bottom 5 children in each classroom as never documented prior to the new principal. To improve the education for all, there must be standards of documentation and analysis.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:07 am
Ms. O is a fantastic human being and administrator. She is smart, hardworking, friendly, and dedicated.
All she tried to do is that which she was hired to do…. Steer a stagnating school forward. Teachers at JM are in a rut with their teaching. She visited their classrooms regularly, and at first, they accused her of spying for the district. She had high expectations of them, and was holding them accountable. Majority of JM students will do well even with a robot for teacher. The true test of really teaching is in closing the achievement gap. Raising the achievement of all students, especially the ones who had no home support or parents who could afford a high-priced private tutor. Ms. O shrank the achievement gap dramatically in one year. She received an Academic Excellence Award from the district for this. If the teachers were doing their job prior to Ms. O’s arrival, why was the achievement gap widening?
Ms. O began an after school tutoring program for students who were failing. She offered the job to JM teachers, and they turned her down, citing that the hourly rate that OUSD was offering them was much lower than what some JM parents were paying them to tutor their kids. Isn’t this a conflict of interest?
These teachers pander to the affluent parents. They refused to teach the afterschool program, but instead privately tutor the affluent kids in their classrooms after school for double the amount! Charging to teach on a public school property!
And those FBB and BB students? Almost all of them are students of color! Those teachers couldn’t care less for these kids.
Which brings me to the real reason that this group of parents and teachers have been campaigning against Ms. O.
A staff member exposed the RACISM going on against Ms. O at the beginning of this school year. This community got scared of the dreaded ‘R’ word being attributed to their community. What do they do instead? Plot with those like-minded prejudiced teachers to ‘silence’ the principal before the RACISM at JM became public knowledge.
I know for a fact that there are very many caucasian parents like me who adore Ms. Obodozie, but the majority are racist, like the teachers, and have never liked the idea of having a Black principal at the school from day one!
Ms. O believes in educating the total child through wellness, therefore she brought a salad bar to JM, banned ‘junk food’, and started two running clubs for students. As a marathon runner herself, she shared her love of running with the school through these track clubs. You would often see her running or jumping ropes or hoola-hooping with students on the yard. At the last Walk-a-Thon, she ran several laps with the children. How many principals are this committed and passionate? I have seen her tutoring students in their classrooms or in the hallways. She is fair and equitable in all her dealings.
She connects with the children!
Stop beating about the bush and face what the real issue is at Joaquin Miller – RACISM!
If the district lets such a young, intelligent, and talented new principal leave the district, the children of Oakland will once again, be the ones who lose. The district must stop catering to the political agenda of ‘whinny, entitled and prejudiced’ adults, who are comfortable with the status quo, and care very little about diversity.
Folks who do not want to be held accountable, but who want to be cocooned off in their private little haven in the Oakland hills!
March 29th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Catherine and Jonie,
I was deeply saddened by your comments and remarks. You have made so many incomplete (and thus inaccurate) statements – the old vs. the new School Council and GATE (the only thing that is factual is your statement that there is now a GATE committee), GATE in grades K-3, the choosing of Ms. Obodozie as principal, school staff and community participation, classroom visits, the whole testing thing and the principal’s responsibility for it, Ms. Obodozie’s hand in closing the achievement gap, lesson plans, the after school program, the misinformed attack against the former principal (who would not have kept her job for 22 years if she had not been good), and the administrative attempts of the current principal. And racism? Please.
Did you even do any homework before posting your comments? I would need to write a book to point out all of missed aspects and actual facts surrounding the issues you brought up.
Yes, Ms. Obodozie is young, talented, capable, and intelligent; but talented and capable of running a school she is not. Ineffective management, the lack of the ability to tell the truth and ask for help when needed, the lack of communication with and respect for staff and parents, the defensive posturing and treatment of staff and parents, the lack of transparency in all aspects of running a school, and a refusal to change make it so. No one did this to her or caused her to do this, she did it herself.
Please, if you post in the future, do it with your head instead of your emotions.
March 29th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Fred:
I was asked to sign the School Site Council budget prepared by the previous principal two years in a row. I was one of two parents at those meetings. You were not there unless Fred is short for Fredrica.
One teacher showed up – yet at least 2 signed the documents. Fred you are wrong about the School Site Council budget and I am very clear about the budget, the GATE money and the method by which the school was paid for and run prior to the new principal.
The test scores were pulled straight off the State of California website.
March 29th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
WOW! Catherine and Joanie
I am puzzled why after two years of utter insanity and chaos under the administration of Ms O. why you two have not openly defended her? Where have you been? Were you even at any of the PTA , GATE, School Site Council meetings? Did you ever encourage her to work with the teachers and not against them? Were you at any of the school board meetings? With friends like you who need enemies.
It is obvious to me that your presence at the JM was limited. The simple fact that you are so quick to exclude the teachers in all the wonderful things you think Ms O is responsible for, lets me know that there are serious issues that go much deeper than her being fired. Issues she should have dealt with.
FYI: just to let you in on a little secret, there has been a teacher at JM who has been tutoring some of her students for free on her own time. This teacher also worked closely with the afterschool tutoring on lesson plans for her students for free. This teacher is currently looking for alternatives that will support the afterschool tutoring program that Ms. O abandoned because she grew tired of monitoring the children in the afternoon.
Ther are alot of factors that contribute to better test scores. None of this can be accomplished by dictates from administrators. Teachers play a vital role in the execution of any mandate. Iif not for the diligence and charitable nature of our PTA, the teachers would have an even harder time. Before the past principal left, she helped to put into place some strategies that I think have contributed to what you all believe is Ms. O’s success. One of the key strategies that she was able to implement is our PTA Tutors, Mrs. Melton and Mrs. Veasey. I feel that the support they provide can be directly attributed to better test scores.
Ladies, as we transition from this year to the next, I hope that you will wallk through the JM halls with a broader view and a word of support and encouragement for everyone.
March 29th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Fred:
As far as proof of the written curriculum development plan by each of the teachers for the students currently below, at and above grade level – - this could easily be solved on Tuesday. The teachers can make their curriculum plans available either on the JM list or on a secure portion of the website.
As far as tutoring in the classroom for cash after school, that, too can easily be verified. Walk the halls next week after school and look in the window at each teacher’s classroom.
The test scores are accurate, unless you want to show how the State of California uniformly posts inaccurate data on testing.
The salad bar did not exist before the current Principal.
The after school tutoring program did not exist to help the students working below grade level until the new principal. If this is inaccurate, please let me know who was doing the tutoring and where it was done. If I am wrong, I will publicly admit so on this blog.
I do agree with you that the majority of the teachers at our school are not racist. However, as with anywhere, I believe there are teachers at our school who believe that there are some students who will not be able to learn the material in one or more years of being taught the material. I also spoke to the previous principal who told me, “We cannot undo what is being done at home. Some of these students are just not prepared to learn.”
I also personally know of two teachers who were offered tutoring opportunities after school, and I have personally witnessed one of them privately tutoring a student in her classroom after school.
When you ask, “Did you check the facts?” My answer is yes, I did. You can too. The past records are at the school district, on the State website, available from the teachers in their curriculum binders and the salad bar can be verified in the cafeteria at lunch.
March 29th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Catherine, as a JM parent who is involved in the school and who is Caucasian I personally don’t feel your statement is accurate reagardless of one’s opinion of how Ms. Obodozie is performing.
“I know for a fact that there are very many caucasian parents like me who adore Ms. Obodozie, but the majority are racist, like the teachers, and have never liked the idea of having a Black principal at the school from day one!”
As another poster mentioned please think about what you posting before you do so especially when you’re throwing such strong accusations around.
March 29th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
JM Parent: Catherine did not post the above statement you attributed to her. That was someone else.
March 29th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
I really can’t wait to send my kids to Joaquin Miller. It sounds like a great learning environment for the kids especially since the parents, teachers, and principal all get along so well.
I’m learning more on this blog about the school than any other site available. This is exactly the kind of stuff I was looking for. The mud slinging in a public forum is fantastic, I wonder what the Joaquin Miller fundraising events are like. Must be a big old friendly party.
I wonder how the kids feel about all this.
Doogie
March 29th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
8 Years at JM:
To say that the principal put a stop to GATE is so off-base that it is funny in a twisted sort of way.
Ms. O incepted a GATE committee of parents and teachers. She began by handing every teacher the State-/District – adopted GATE Standards which most of them neither knew existed nor ever saw. She spent a whole staff development day training them on the GATE Standards, then on how to properly differentiate instruction for all students.
Next, she brings parents onboard to form a GATE committee. Again, she hands every parent the GATE standards and reviews it with them, clarifying as the meeting went along. She sent yet another packet home to the parents which included not just the GATE standards, but information on CAG membership, as well as critical resources about GATE children and GATE parenting.
Third, she enlisted the services of nationally-known trainer, Jill Carroll, to further train teachers on Differentiated Instruction. During the past two Wednesdays, Ms. Carroll trained grades K-2 teachers. And the two consecutive Wednesdays after spring break, she will be training grades 3-5 teachers.
Ms. Obodozie has pulled our teachers out of their technological ‘stone age’ by conducting staff developments around technology. Most JM teachers mostly use their laptops for word-processing. She taught them to navigatee even the district’s website, the State Dept. of Education’s website, among others.
When did their persecution of Ms. O really kick into high gear?
When she went ‘green’ with the Staff Bulletin and began emailing a soft copy to teachers. They threw a major hissy fit! Emailing the entire district to whine about Ms. O’s technological inclinations. Some of them shamefully confessed that they did not know how to open an attachment. True story.. Mind you, this is the 21st century.
Professional as ever, Ms. O offered constantly to come to their rooms and walk them through the process, and she did.
She introduced them to EASY GRADE PRO, an electronic grading system. She’s been trying to get this group of “professionals” to post their homework and grades/progress reports online so that parents can have easy access to them, but the teachers pushed back. Have you JM parents wondered why majority of the teachers hardly communicate with you electronically? At other progressive schools, parents can access their child’s teacher’s webpage 24/7 to see the lesson plans and their child’s progress report.
These are projects that Ms. O has been trying to implement, but they push back, and instead spend precious time plotting to discredit her.
Ms. O has so much to offer, but these teachers belong on another planet and time in history! They are in a time warp, period.
You bring a young and bright principal like Ms. O on the scene, and like a lynch mob, they plot and make up stuff, anything, to smear her, all in an effort to draw attention away from their ineptitude.
Through it all, Ms. O remains professional, dedicated to her job, cheerful, and ever so courteous to her persecutors.
Face it…our people always feel threatened by confident, intelligent, highly enlightened (might I add, well-traveled) Black people like Ms. O. So what do they do? Anything and everything they can to discredit them. Look at history!
And you tell me it’s not racism? The sad thing racist folks are so prejudiced, they don’t even see it.
I suggest, 8 Years at JM and Fred:
Stop spewing your lies against this young woman. Have you no conscience? You know, what goes around comes around. I know that some day somehow, you will all regret the parts that you’ve played in this ugly situation at JM.
March 29th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Thank you Katy for pointing that out.
My apologies to Catherine as I hastily posted my comment too quickly and associated the wrong name with it. Again, sorry for the mistake.
March 29th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
While all of this is fascinating insight into Joaquin Miller, am I the only one troubled by the comment posted by the Montera teacher using phrases such as “climate of fear”, “harrassment” and “verbal abuse of female teachers”? What’s up with Montera?
March 29th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
I feel that many of the comment regarding JM and the principal have hostile, cruel and misdirected. It seems rather safe to do your bullying and name-calling on a blog where you can hide behind your first name or a pseudonym. I challenge those who do not use their real name to come out. This is not how we teach our kids to settle their differences.
Whether or not we agree on Mrs. O’s leadership style, work with parents, etc., our job now is to rally for our kids and teachers and work towards healing and finding a new principal to lead us.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
KATY MURPHY, WAKE UP! Why haven’t you been reporting on the horrible RACISH, harrassment and hate that not only the black Principal of Joaquin Miller has had to put up with, but many and I mean many, of the black kids there. The are parents and teachers that do nothing all day but plot and plan on how to make JM an all white school again. In fact, one of the 5th grade teachers is one of the worst racist there and has numerous parent complaints filed against her. SOMEONE DO SOMETHING! It is really a hateful little school. Talk about “climate of fear?” Walk the halls of JM one day, any day.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
How is the new principal going to be chosen now with all of this controvery?
March 29th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Colleen:
I am a parent of a JM student. While I agree that we should rally around our students and our teachers I do find the information important to share. I wish that as a school we had created a place where these facts, if indeed they are facts, could have come forth so that we could have held all of the adults at our school accountable – the principal, the teachers, the district and the parents.
I do not see any where in these posts that we are not supporting the teachers and the students. I do see us airing our dirty laundry, but are you saying that we should not have information that is correct? If that is the case we are doomed to repeat our problems.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
A Reply To Doogie Howser (that’s what we call my brother-in-law),
It saddens me that you would judge the entire population of Joaquin Miller based on less than a handful of parents posting here. We ALL want what is best for our children. Most of us are unselfish enough to want what is best for ALL children. Sometimes we get carried away and act in ways that may not end up being helpful. Regardless of “whose side” we were/are on, it is time now for the entire population of JM to start working together to build a better future for the school.
March 30th, 2009 at 8:40 am
Facts and discussions. We need to have them in the open, face to face, not here on a blog where people can hide behind anonymity and blog names (yes, as I am doing too) This requires that people come to meetings and participate, not stand on the sidelines and moan later.
Those of you who appear to be so passionate about the issues should come to the PTA meetings, participate in school projects, and help the selection committee that will now have to interview and find a principal for next year. Those of you who are appalled at the tone of this blog should come mediate real discussions. It is much harder to be vitriolic and vindictive in person.
In the meantime, we should support the principal, the teachers and the students so that the kids can get the education that they deserve, without everyone being more distracted by responding to blog posts.
On the subject of technology and bringing the school into the 2000′s, however, I must point out that many of the new things that are happening at the school on the technology front are courtesy of Helene Moore, our computer lab wiz, and involved parents. I am mentioning this not to slam the principal but to make clear that other folks are involved who are not getting credit in the rush to either defend or bash the outgoing principal. Those same people will be remaining at the school, and continuing to do their jobs. For that I am thankful.
March 30th, 2009 at 8:56 am
Just got around to noticing this thread.
Sounds like that school is a crazy hen-house.
The comments here are worth reading and I’m tired of weak minded people whining racism everytime they face critism or adversarial action. It’s like crying “Wolf”.
The conflict around Ms O is facinating.
Maybe she should be replaced with a King Jorge. The hen-house needs a rooster.
March 30th, 2009 at 9:12 am
Dig deep enough and you’re bound to find something amiss.
The lesson is in how we work together to resolve the issue.
Whether it’s JM or Montera or yet another school, we’ve got to channel our energies toward positive, constructive results.
So much of what I’ve been reading is focused on sniping and whining. Let’s focus on the bigger picture instead: Working collaboratively to build a stronger, finer school district of excellence.
March 30th, 2009 at 9:39 am
I am a JM parent and feel disheartened by the string of blog postings. We have worked diligently as a parent community to deal with the current tensions at the school in a systematic and respectful manner. It saddens me to see that a few parents feel comfortable berating the school in a public forum, especially when they send their children to JM.
I have witnessed a strong and committed parent community who are generally able to deal with conflict constructively through healthy discussions. I know that many parents and teachers remain committed to providing our children with a creative, academic, and respectful environment. A public forum seems like a destructive place to voice such divisive comments.
By nature, schools are dynamic and can often become political, especially when parents, teachers, and administrators share opposing opinions and values. I believe that it is very easy to lay blame and point fingers vs. take responsibility for a school atmosphere that needs change. The school has had a challenging year but I am confident that because we have a community of dedicated parents, we can move beyond this mess and recreate a culture of learning and respect.
Enough is enough!
March 30th, 2009 at 9:44 am
I am one of the Maxwell Park teachers who was at the meeting, and unfortunately I can’t shed any light on why Dr. Newling is not being brought back.
The school has had a string of principals in recent years, which does a real disservice to the students. Parents and teachers alike have been pleased with the new energy and changes she has brought to the school. In the absence of any other information, all we can speculate is that she has some enemies downtown, or that she is not doing things “by the book” as much as the suits would like.
Katy, thanks for your attention to the issue!
March 30th, 2009 at 10:13 am
I am devastated and saddened to read the comments by a mere few whose only interest is in inciting anger. I have been at JM for 6 years now. I have 2 children there. I adore the school. I have never felt any of the “racism” to which one seriously unbalanced person referred. One of the reasons I was drawn to this school and to this community is for the wonderful diversity it has. For those researching the school as an option, please know that it is a very special school. Never has there been this sort of unsettled environment before Mrs. O arrived. She arrived at the school unwilling to learn and listen, it was her way or the highway from the very beginning. A part of me believes that perhaps it is herself who is posting these hateful comments about our school. I am sad, and very relieved that change is coming. I am tired of seeing our teachers fear for their jobs…a dictatorship is not a good regime for a public school. Communication and feedback are essential to progress. Mrs. Obedozie would allow neither from her staff. Staff meetings were simply a presentation by Mrs. O. Discussion was not allowed. Any items to be discussed had to be handwritten and put in a “parking lot”. Mrs. O would then decide if it was an appropriate subject to put on the agenda.
I have endless stories of inappropriate and hurtful behavior by Mrs. O. But I would prefer to concentrate on the fact that obviously she is not a good fit for a public school. I blame the District somewhat in that early on they should have stepped in to give her guidance. Unfortunately, the damage is done. I wish her nothing but the best at her next job, and I hope that we all can work together to find the right principal to bring our school back to the wonderful place it used to be.
March 30th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Debora,
I am concerned about those who choose to post hate and remain anonymous. I believe there have been many constructive outlets offered at JM for parents who wanted to participate in changing the climate at school. I feel that people should take responsibilty for their words.
March 30th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
On an administrative note: To all of you new blog participants (or those using new screen names or email addresses), I apologize for the delay in moderating your comments today.
I was at an all-day conference — which I’ll blog about momentarily — without Internet access.
If you use the exact same screen name and email address the next time you post a comment, it will automatically appear.
March 30th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Colleen:
Let’s just suppose that some of the comments are true. I happen to know that some of the “facts” presented are true, and I am unwilling to speak to the feelings presented.
I feel that we as a school community owe ourselves a rigorous review of the issues put forth by parents. Perhaps I am a simpleton, but what I learned from my grandmother was this: if you would feel completely comfortable having your activities or those activities you condone by action or inaction on the front page of the San Francisco Chronicle, then you can feel you are doing the right thing. However, if having the activity published would cause you to shift in your seat, then perhaps it is not the upstanding activity you want if you want to live a life with integrity.
I went to the meeting at the school. I did not think that we rigorously applied the standard of review to ourselves in all our school’s previous activities. Three examples come to mind, the test scores from 2003 to 2007 and what they mean to children of color and lower socio-economic groups, our lack of a GATE Committee as outlined by the district and the lack of an actively participated school site council and budget process.
I did attempt to bring these issues to light in the group forum provided. What I have said here is not something that I had not brought to light at that time. For whatever reason, we did not apply a standard of rigorous review to these issues.
I too, believe that a public forum is not the place to air the laundry; however, I do believe we owe it to ourselves and our children to review each of the items brought forth and to correct anything that we would not publicly published. In doing so, we will be modeling the behavior and integrity that we would expect in our children.
March 30th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
CBITS went up 41 API pts in 08;we’re a good school that has high expectations of leadership!
For Pepe to suggest 80% of our teachers want to remain status quo by complaining because we don’t want to work hard, that is an insult to the profession of teaching.
Last time I checked, status quo teachers do NOT organize, rally, and fight for the best interests of students. Instead, they hide behind their desk and hope to keep their job another year.
If Pepe or anyone else read the letter, or were at the BOE meeting and listened to it, s/he would quickly see the motive of this letter: student achievement and advocacy for the East Oakland community!!!
March 30th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
BTW: funny how Pepe criticizes 18 teachers, then 16 min later changes the subject. Hmm…fishy.
March 30th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
I think the fact that the JM “debate” has taken up so much room here reflects the tensions that many have felt over at least the last year. It is unfortunate that there is so much mudslinging. My personal opinion is that it is because we are proud of our school we feel compelled to defend it. I personally am bothered by charges of racism at the school–largely because I think it is utterly unfounded (and in fact I always liked the fact that the school is not all white). I also find it surprising that one person would feel so angry about it, talking about how but is supposedly a JM parent? Interesting that this person says: “Folks who do not want to be held accountable, but who want to be cocooned off in THEIR private little haven in the Oakland hills!” (emphasis mine) … do you think a JM parent would talk about “THEIR private little haven…” ? No, if you are a JM parent you are one of US (whether you agree with me –or “them”–or disagree vehemently). And really, do you know of any white people who would say “Caucasians like me?” I’m a “Caucasian,” I suppose, though I have no background ties to the Caucasus region, or I’m a “white” person, or person of noncolor, since people who are not like me are persons of color…. (Actually I didn’t know it was even politically correct for us persons of noncolor to refer to our color in any way at all, since we’re obviously so hateful by nature of the color of our skin, or so I’ve been told. BTW, I was ecstatic to vote for our current president, as were lots of us persons of noncolor, but that’s another story.)
Actually, I appreciate this forum, and I appreciate knowing with some finality that the arguments about the JM principal will come to an end, because I am truly tired of hearing the buzzings in the hallway all the time. And I apologize profusely, Colleen and others who are proud enough (brave enough? noncontroversial enough?) to use your real name. You say some really great things. I think what you say is true. I am not going to use my real name because I don’t want any judgement from people who agree or disagree with me to cloud my normal day-to-day interactions with the people I see up at JM every day, who I truly appreciate. So thank you for your words. Sorry I’ll remain anonymous.
I also appreciate the points of view opposite of mine, although I disagree strongly with the charges, and with some of the stated “improvements” that have been brought to the school. I think it’s really interesting to hear, and I think it’s helpful to hear a perspective that I would not otherwise have heard, even though it is true that I am very skeptical that every person on this comment forum is actually a “JM parent” like they claim to be. Really, I could be wrong, but I’d be surprised if you could be at this school for so long and not love some part of it, because we all know there are parents who will gladly take your place (and mine), from within and out of the JM enrollment area. And there are plenty of schools that are more or less white or mixed than ours. It also seems odd that the two angriest posters (Catherine and Joanie) know so many details about every single teacher and the details of Ms. Obodozie’s inner workings, and their arguments for the current principal are largely about things I’ve never heard about. I’m wondering if these were teacher issues.
I didn’t know the details of the GATE debate, and didn’t even realize that it was an issue. I personally could care less whether my child’s teacher knows how to detach an email attachment, or understands the “EASY GRADE PRO” program (and don’t you think it’s interesting that a “parent” defends the particular software that most of us parents have never heard of?). Frankly, I’m ok with handwritten report cards. At this level, I may even favor them, and God knows I really don’t think it’s a big deal if my child’s teacher is internet-savvy or email-savvy. I might be more offended if this were high school, but I am just glad my teachers are teaching good basics, plus extras (many teachers make a point of teaching the kids how to get along and be good citizens). Sure, email might be more convenient for me. Sort of. Though I really don’t want to spend more time on the computer. I LIKE face to face interaction with teachers. And I have been happy with all the teachers we’ve had so far. Are they perfect? No. Some of them a little quirky? Yes. Are we learning? Absolutely. Is the school a good fit for my family? YES! Thank you, JM! By the way, I do think it’s also interesting that the teacher who was fired (and hopefully that is being rescinded) seemed to be very computer-savvy, and I know she emailed her parents regularly. I don’t know whether she liked or disliked Ms. Obodozie’s leadership (I mean, BEFORE she got fired) or computer requirements or grading program, but don’t you think it’s ironic that the passionate arguments for Ms. Obodozie are contradictory? Not just internally (I do have some issues with the statements, and I’m sorry that those are so angry that the statements seem confused). But if someone is frustrated that teachers didn’t like the computer dictates, then why did she fire the (apparently) most computer-savvy faculty member (other than the computer teacher)?
I had never before heard any negative charges about Mrs. Fong (the teacher who had moved from K to 2, that Catherine said taught her child nothing). I only heard glowing reports about her, and I personally thought she was a great teacher, and I do know that she left because she did not want to experience any more tension from the principal (this was no secret, and I heard it both from other parents as well as from Mrs. Fong herself, when I sought her out much later to sort through the chaos myself). I also am of the opinion that Mrs. Fong’s leaving was the straw that broke the camel’s back for many parents–we were all afraid we’d lose our children’s best assets: more fabulous JM teachers. As parents, we know that our kid’s parents are the most important part of our kid’s days that we have no control over. We love our best teachers. Of course.
Here is why I like JM: I happen to like people with strong convictions and the will to act upon them. I like intelligent parents, even though I may get frustrated if they don’t see my point of view or are disrespectful. I prefer people who can disagree with me in a reasonable fashion, rather than try to claim that all of us are stupid racists. But I don’t even take exception to that charge because it is so baseless, and if it wasn’t downright mean it would be comical. (In fact, the tone and “facts” behind some of these comments is more like the passionate rhetoric you’d see in a political campaign.)
But here is my main point (and I apologize, again, that I’m not comfortable using my real name, and I apologize that I’m so darned wordy–it does take time to be concise):
I think JM is a great school. The teachers that I have experience with have been great. All of them have different, individual styles that may take a bit of flexibility on the part of the parents to get used to. Fortunately, we’ve had good fits so far. The thing I REALLY love about JM (and this includes the parents that care enough to be involved and make their opinions known) is that we all know we’ll do just fine through this trying time. We’ve DONE fine through this trying time. We just want to be FINISHED with this trying time and focus on more of the things we’re good at: academics, diversity, strong parental involvement, and good opportunities for kids to learn IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL. We’re not all “wealthy” (although there are some wealthy people mixed in with those of us who are “unwealthy”–is that a crime?). This is a great group of parents. It’s one of the reasons we’re here. The students are also terrific kids, all of them learning to the best of their abilities. (and duh, not all kids are going to learn at the same levels, and duh, we can’t fix every child’s home environment for families who don’t support education, regardless of color, but for those who want to learn, you can learn here. Regardless of color.)
No doubt I offended some with my comments. Sorry. I was offended by the out-front attack of my school that I read, and I wrote facts that I knew about. I am sorry that some wish I hadn’t said what I’d said. I am not sorry that I wrote them. This is a good school. I am sorry that I am looking forward to a new administration. I think I also have felt what other parents I know have felt: that the worst part about this school year has been the Code of Silence imposed upon us. We all knew something was wrong. We were told that Things Were Being Addressed. But we couldn’t get a straight answer out of anybody, and we had no way to talk about it. So some of us were bursting a little bit (with relief and pent-up frustration), and might have been able to keep our mouths shut had we not felt that our school was being attacked. I didn’t intend to turn this into an Obodozie mudslinging myself, but I don’t appreciate having my school attacked under the auspices of “defending Ms. Obodozie”–which I hadn’t heard anyone wanting to do before this. (I had known people with no issues with her, particularly amongst people who had no reason to interact with her, and I was very quiet about my own difficulties with her for a very long time–none of them race-related, mind you–because I didn’t realize that the problems I was having were more widespread, maybe because I had kept my mouth shut.) Even in these trying times we all know that we are fortunate to be in a good school. (there are schools with higher test scores, sure, and there are schools with lower test scores. Those who choose their schools by test scores alone probably wouldn’t choose JM anyway, though we all know nobody would turn away from JM because the scores are too high–even in the period that Joanie states was “stagnant.”)
Does anybody remember the Newsweek article from a couple of years ago that highlighted a student who left because the teaching was too rigorous? The parent left because she thought the teachers were too demanding of her kid (and of course, the article couldn’t possibly have captured the subtleties of that…) Remember too, that in the last few years, all Oakland schools, including JM, have gone through a huge transition from independent school district to state-administered school district (come to think of it, has this coincided with the Period of Unstable Principals, or has Oakland always been like this?).
I doubt that Katy Murphy had any idea that the four words in her blog devoted exclusively to our school would elicit such a storm. Sorry, Katy, for being part of the domineering comments. But I do feel that it’s because we weren’t allowed to talk about it in any prior forum (maybe for good reason), and we never had any information about what was going on and why the teachers were so upset and why the parents were so upset. (For example, I only learned accidentally that Ms. Obodozie fired a teacher around the same time she got fired, and my first reaction was that something that gratuitously uncalled-for couldn’t possibly be true. Betcha most of the school still doesn’t know about that. And yes, it’s true. And hopefully won’t be true for long.)
There does seem to be an issue with principals in the Oakland schools generally. I’d like more information about this. I’d like to believe that this unusual set of events (four principals receiving notices in March instead of May–not that I have a clue about any of the “usual” ways these things are done) is a positive result of having a new District Interim Administrator. That is complete conjecture on my part, but I prefer to think positively, since I live here.
As for Katy Murphy’s question (related to the 100+ words that could be construed to be indirectly related to some JM issues, and whether they should have gotten release notices in March instead of May), for me it’s good. I would imagine that for the principals it’s a mixed bag. It would probably be easier for them in some ways to get their notices later. Getting them now essentially makes them lame ducks. Kind of like the last few months of the Bush presidency. We know they are out, and therefore we don’t know how much of their choices (or demands) will be part of our futures. Maybe none. So it could make them less effective because people know they sort of don’t have to listen. Then again, it could make them more effective because they will probably focus on the things that work, rather than whatever it was that apparently led to their releases. On the other hand, tt could make them feel humiliated. I’d feel humiliated if I had to keep doing a job that everybody who I wanted to help me do the job (the teachers, staff and parents–and let’s not pretend that a principal’s job is accomplished by just one person) knows I’m outta there. But it could also be a positive. If it were me, I’d rather know as soon as possible if my job is history. I’d probably appreciate the extra three months’ salary, and I suspect the five principals appreciate that (God knows if I get fired, I get two weeks max. It would be a luxury to earn my salary for three months, and to have that period of time to transition out of my job). Also, if it were me, I’d use those few months to just chill a little bit. There is some relief in knowing that you no longer have to prove yourself in your current position. And maybe some parents who were very frustrated by the principals will take a deep breath and put more energy back where it belongs, and will give the principals a break now that they know that they will not be returning.
As a parent, frankly, I’m also conflicted about this financially (and yes, it’s my taxes too), because we are now paying from our strapped district a principal’s salary and, at JM anyway, consulting fees for two administrators–who seem to be doing an excellent job, by the way–and we also paid another consultant earlier in the school year, so part of me would rather say goodbye now. And I guess if this debate becomes too much digging through dirty laundry I’d prefer that we say goodbye immediately.
One thing I’m very concerned about is the hiring process. How is it that this school district has managed to make so many unfortunate hiring decisions? Is this typical? Or is it one of those things that is just embarrassing about this city? Has there been more transitions among principals in the last few years? Is some of it related to those in charge of the hiring process? And what IS happening with Montera and other schools? What’s this I keep hearing about strange finances, PTA funds unaccounted for? I certainly don’t remember anything like this when I was a student (not in Oakland, by the way). Is there a way to fix that?
March 30th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
The reformers have to understand that they need to bring the old-timers along for the ride. I see this all the time — fresh recruits to the edu world blazing in full of theory and passion … and then becoming incredibly frustrated at the “old-timers” blocking their path.
Rage isn’t going to change the reality that you need those vets, a lot of them are actually good teachers and … THEY’RE NOT GOING ANYWHERE! Even if you banned the union and ended tenure, districts like Oakland are not flush with extra teachers and would keep 90% of these vets.
The attitude toward these vets is condescending in the extreme, as exemplified by the comments here. They don’t know what an email attachment is!? Stone them! They didn’t read the same edu-visionaries in their credential program new recruits read these days? Euthanize them!
Somebody posted about about older JM teachers being resistent to “Easy Grade Pro.” Well, please — just as “green” email is not going to save the rain forest, Easy Grade Pro isn’t going to make you a good teacher anymore than word processors make you a good writer. It’s just a gradebook with bells and whistles.
I’m not against such modernifications — I’m a tech-savvy young’en — but you need to keep your eye on the ball: Creating good curriculum, morale, safety and building your teachers into better ones. That’s the real job of a principal and you better not burn your bridges over conflicts that are secondary, like forcing 60-year-old kindergarten teachers to use spreadsheets.
[Particularly ironic in this particular case is that the families of the poorer families in Oakland are the least likely to be able to check their kids' homework online and the most in need of paper communication!]
Most principals think their job is a one-way street. The reality is that for every successful King Jorge at TINY Oakland Charter Academy with easily intimidated parents, there are a hundred of these prima donnas who blow in and out of larger and more political schools at an average clip of 18 to 36 months, leaving chaos and depression in their wake.
Coincidentally, I have seen several already up close who are EXTREMELY defensive. Didn’t they hear you needed a thick skin for this job?
It’s a LEADERSHIP job. You can be tough, smart, whatever — it doesn’t mean anything unless the majority of stakeholders follow your LEAD.
March 31st, 2009 at 4:57 am
Diligent Parent:
I have had the pleasure of keeping in touch with Mrs. Fong. Her frustration began when kindergarten became full time. She did not believe it was developmentally apprpriate particularly for those students just turning 5; many of whom had not experienced full time preschool.
You are right that it was compounded with the new principal.
I do not believe she enjoyed teaching second grade as much as she enjoyed kindergarten. This statement is pure opinion based on what I saw in her interactions with second grade students and curriculum. I believe she truly had a love of kindergarteners having that first half day “taste” of school.
March 31st, 2009 at 9:29 am
People, do you realize that if even half of you showed up at the administrative offices, demands in hand, with a reporter in tow, you would surely be heard.
Enough with the talk. The “my school” this and “my school” that. Disengage the myopia and focus on the larger picture.
Mobilize and head to the building that houses those who have a major role in determining the fate of your schools. And demand corrective, immediate action.
Anything less is to fail your children and your school community.
March 31st, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Well that was fun. Everyone feel better now?
March 31st, 2009 at 1:57 pm
From Jo Anna Lougin, executive director of United Administrators Oakland Schools:
“The Board of Education has not finalized the Non-Re-elect letters. Those letters were staff recommendation to the Board. There may be changes, there may be reversals after the Board reviews all the facts that will be presented between now and May 15th. It is very important that the principals at these sites be treated with respect as they continue to work for Oakland Unified.
I am hoping that the truth will come forth on all these situations of Non-Re-elect, categorical March 15th letters, and the other March 15th notices.
The process this year has not followed standard procedures and the Board of Education now needs to do it’s job and investigate fully what is happening and not happening at the schools.”
March 31st, 2009 at 3:00 pm
I sure hope they don’t use the info from this blog to judge on Ms O – all the pro-Ms O postings are made by one and the same parent under multiple aliases.
March 31st, 2009 at 8:34 pm
“8 years at JM is a liar.” Leave the woman alone; no one deserves the public humiliation you people have put Mrs. Obodozie through. Lies, hate, bigotry and racism are consuming your lives. It is frightening that some of you are parents in the year 2009. How does it feel to ruin another human’s life for sport?
April 1st, 2009 at 12:44 am
Wow Meeow! And to think this used to be my neighborhood school! My how long and sharp finger nails have grown there! I’m glad my kid’s out of that scratching collateral damage zone. Cat nip should be a felony possession charge at that school house!
The above said, I do enjoy the heigher level articulation of this higher elevation O neighborhood school. Little wonder it was a popular kid deposit perk for Oakland’s school brass (e.g., Board member Gallo’s non-neighborhood documented offspring doing 8-3 up there).
Mrs. Obodozie: Parlez-vous francais? I thought so! Maybe next time this snobby hill school community will be open to hiring a principal who isn’t French! You don’t need a French administrator when a French teacher will status suffice. In the City of Oakland White-European school administrators (when hired) are MUCH more likely to become victims of the “lies, hate, bigotry, and racism” that consume so many of OUSD’s minority majority.
April 1st, 2009 at 10:25 am
Wow, John. Talk about long and sharp fingernails.
Incredible that you can speak for those you refer to as “white-European” AND the experiences of the so-called minority-majority.
With reach like that, perhaps you can solve the global economic meltdown for your next trick?
April 1st, 2009 at 11:39 am
Hey there brother/sister Harlemmoon, I be speaking for (some of) my people. Are you a white-European!? How can you understand the trials and tribulations we’ve suffered as a now Oakland minority group!? What do you know about being brought to Oakland at the tender age of three in the human cargo hold of a mid century puke green Nash, and then be forced into schools with strict learning standards and quick (parent approved) punitive responses to student misbehavior. And then after being brain washed with higher math, English, white European history, science, and the American constitution having my transcripts stamped and getting deported to university where I was subjected to more or less of the same! Yep, back in them days they had there own way of NOT letting us white-Europeans (& most everyone else) get left behind in the Oakland schools.
Actually Harlemmoon, many of my generation would like to solve the “economic meltdown” of today but there aren’t enough of us forced fed educated (not left of left) left to do the “trick,” or substantively protest the individuals responsible for making it happen and now hastening its progressive progression.
As for (some of) Oakland’s now minority majority, it be there turn to “oppress” us, right? After all, what goes around comes around and I be comin pulled around to da way things are, and the way they’re gonna be in our BRAVE NEW WORLD!
Be patient with me my progressive MASTERS. I be mo better mananna.
April 1st, 2009 at 11:51 am
Hmmm. After reading what I hope to be your final post, John, I truly want to pray with you to find the help you so desperately need.
April 1st, 2009 at 2:35 pm
On a more policy-oriented note, The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning just put out a brief on school principal training and support in California. In short, researchers have found it lacking:
http://www.cftl.org/whatsnew.php
April 1st, 2009 at 3:03 pm
C’mon Harlemmoon, you have to admit that post # 60 was a lot of fun!
And if you are here to plead the case of censorship, that dog won’t hunt. John’s entitled to his opinion and it’s not fovorable to certain people.
And I agree with him that all of the problems we have now with money being wasted on kids who do not learn, do not want to learn or can’t learn is a result of Left Wing “Education” Majors coming to power and wrecking schools that worked much better generations ago. They think you can throw money at the school and fix poor behavior. When it’s sink or swim time people generally manage to swim.
I say we start sticking pins into the water wings of the non-performers in our public school. Students come up to civilized levels of deportment and academic performance or be removed from the normal schools into continuation schools more suited to them and put out to work quickly in entry level menial jobs – or more sophisticated jobs, whatever they can get and keep.
I don’t need super principals with super ideas. Just a manager who runs the teaching staff in a reasonable way, and gets rid of bad students. How hard is that?
Brave New World.
April 1st, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Hmmm. If that’s what passes for fun in this circle, Nextset, I suggest the both of you keep your day jobs.
Now, back to reasonable discussion.
You and your omniscient pal John propose a dangerous solution: throwing children under the (school) bus. A solution you suggest will lead to finer schools generally. Perhaps. But in so doing, you’ve effectively given up on those who achieve at slower rates. I say “Boo.”
How about we look at schools as a neighbor in a larger community. One where everyone (social services, law enforcement, health department) pitches into raise the whole child.
I submit that we’re way past blaming the school district. We must be focused instead on who’s responsible – and that’s everybody.
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:56 am
Harlemmoon: Thanks for your vote of “omniscience” and the (your) implied acknowledgement that you should be praying TO me instead of “with me.”
For I say unto you Harlemoon, it doesn’t “take a village” to effectively raise a child, just good parenting. Good parenting requires a lot of hard work and dedication, obviously a bit too challenging for way too many in Oakland’s black community, something I repeatedly observed during twenty-five years of teaching in Oakland’s black communities.
The intact families in those schools, with mom and dad playing an active role in their child’s life and education, stood out like non sore healthy thumbs! It’s too bad “social services, law enforcement, health department” have to pick up the slack created by Oakland’s Afro American slacker parents! I often felt sorry for the Afro American grandparents having to raise the grandchildren their own kids ignored (e.g., Lovell Mixon, the murderer of four INNOCENT police officers). And that’s THE TRUTH brother/sister Harlemoon!
April 2nd, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Did any one ask the 20 percent of CBET teachers why they did not sign. Where is the due process ?
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Two things -
Can we stop this infighting and nastiness now? Let’s remember we are all in this FOR OUR CHILDREN and model some respectful behavior – how shameful and embarrassing for the rest of the public to see such pettiness aired in an open forum. Last time I checked, stating one’s opinion did NOT mean name-calling, finger-pointing and labelling. Or getting attacked for stating said opinion.
And does anyone find it terribly suspect that “Joanie” seems to have all kinds of information that the average (even very well-connected) school parent would never be privy to? I repeat the comments of an earlier poster – if you so vehemently defend Ms. O, and with such detailed information, where were you during the civil discussions and PTA meetings at which you could have voiced your opinion? Or…are you REALLY a parent?
Please – let’s remember we need to be a community for our children and their school. Take your vitriol elsewhere and catfight privately. As former principal Linda Lu would have said – and something she tried to instill in JM students while she was there – “Don’t become part of the problem – be a part of the solution.”
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Yes, I agree with Andrea that it’s important to remember that what’s posted here — your name attached or not — has consequences.
I should note, though, that suggesting that another poster might be lying about his/her identity and gaining access to privileged information could be considered, by some, to be “catfighting” as well.
P.S. I’d also recommend that people try to stick to the same — ideally, unique — screen name (this is not directed at Andrea!). One person appears to have used up to three different handles on this thread, which creates the impression that there were multiple authors.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:42 pm
HarlemMoon: Gee, you should see what passes for fun in my circle.
The first thing you learn in law school is that there is no consolation prize for people who are on the wrong side of the law. They just lose. This isn’t China or Japan where wrongdoers get to split the bill with others. And nobody gets something just because they exist. Except in Great Society give away programs.
I’m not John. His ideas are his own and he has the same ability to speak them as you do. I know that hurts, but we aren’t in your school and there’s no thought control yet. So you disagree with his policy.. just disagree. His way of saying it is his own.
And there can be no finer example of how not to teach the left side of the Bell Curve than the way things are done at OUSD. The dull students fared much better in 1960. Now they are made unemployable and ready for prison.
And villages don’t raise children in this country. Parents do and Teachers teach and train the parent’s children. You can forget the nonsense about anybody else including the Cops and Social Workers. That whole “village” line is socialist baloney. Especially in this multicultural mess we have in CA. Nobody is raising other people’s kids. Either their parents function or they don’t and the kid raises themself.
The danger of what we have created with the Brave New World is the rigid class separation and the destruction of the middle class which leaves us with whole sections of society who really loathe each other and will not deal with each other. Like marries like, lives in like housing and goes to school with like. The various classes are becoming so completely different they will have nothing intersecting soon.
The “real” schools in Los Angeles, the private ones, will in no way resemble Los Angeles Unified. The public schools have their insane “freedom of speech” to the point that the kids are self centered and feral, while the higher class kids are taught everything one needs to know to be accepted in the society that owns and operates the economy. By 12th grade they speak different languages.
Back to the thread. OUSD chooses and retains Principals to maintain it’s bad standards and to keep the lid on, while the students shuffle along to their fate. Why are “good” people even sticking around in such a school district? I hope all the dismissed principals get better jobs at real (or better) schools. Maybe the Jr Colleges??
April 6th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
With all of the focus on JM, does anyone know the likelyhood that the Board will reverse the decision and keep Mr. Sye at Skyline?
April 10th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
To the Oakland principal:
They did not sign it for fear of their job. They have said this explicitly to colleagues who have leaked it elsewhere. When you are a bad teacher, why get on the bad side of the principal?
April 13th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
In response to Maxwell Park Elem & other principals:
I would not be so quick to think that a principal just has “enemies downtown” that she herself didn’t make.
I have seen some of the hardest working people in education be pushed out for questioning their principals and how things operate at a school.
HR and the powers that be “downtown” seek legal and ethical counsel before recommending non-reelection of staff, which is more than can be said for many of the principals in the district who can freely send out letters of non-rehire to any teacher without tenure and do not have to show any reason.
This whole city needs to look at this issue of racism as well as abuse of power, for we have confused one for the other.
May 15th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
[...] Desley Brooks and dozens of Skyline parents, teachers and neighbors did not convince the Oakland school board to rescind the dismissal of Al Sye from Skyline High [...]
August 4th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
The real story behind the crew of CBIT teachers’ letter in question is a group of 7 rogue CBIT teachers, with varying degrees of animosity towards the current administration and/or blind loyalty to the ring leader of the crew, conspired to write a letter, the contents of which were issues either already resolved (e.g., the district mandate to enroll all incoming freshmen in Alg 1) or unsubstantiated. The accusation of “harassment and victimization” in the letter was complete hyperbole and not even addressed by one single CBIT teacher the week following the school board mtg when then-President Spearmen presided over an open forum at Castlemont.
As for the apparent 80 percent of CBIT staff who did sign the letter, what the rogue teachers fail to mention in their misrepresentation of CBITS is that faculty including the administrative assistant, attendance clerk, resource specialist, and technology specialist, and several parent liaisons and volunteers were all approached to sign the letter in question, none of who did. There was absolutely no parent or community support for the seven teachers behind the letter. They can’t be all “bad” parents and “bad” faculty members afraid for their jobs. That’d be simplistic thinking.
How the 7 teachers did procure signatures was by the unethical means of altering the contents of the letter as needed or by adding or deleting language from the letter for any teacher to sign without reacquiring signatures or at any time informing anyone of any changes made to a document they’ve already attached their name to. The letter was purposely spaced so that the signature page was a separate page with the intent to make whatever changes needed to get teachers to sign and omit the changes when the letter was presented to the board.
The 20 percent of CBIT teachers who did not sign the letter were not any worse teachers or any more fearful because they were the ones who exercised better judgment. It’s a matter of integrity. The 7 teachers in question showed none. Beyond the 7 teachers who abused the trust of their colleagues by being deceitful in acquiring signatures, most teachers who did sign the letter felt betrayed afterwards and many have since said explicitly that they wish they hadn’t signed and would rather have their name disassociated altogether with the letter, which was a mischaracterization of CBITS.